Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 14, 2014, 1:22 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

Just came across this thread today, and find that Alan has made some excellent points. I have advanced the same position in other places; that FCC chairman Wheeler's position is intended to completely gut neutrality, and provide a basis for ISPs to create a multi-tier internet. The only way you will be able to get the speeds you think you are paying for, will be to pay a surcharge to the ISP for the services which require that higher bandwidth.
In the future, instead of Netflix paying the ISP for 'fast lane' delivery of its service, you will be required to pay the surcharge.
Ramcewan;
You do realize this latest controversy was raised b/c the Supreme Court ruled against the ad hoc regulations that the FCC was using to require net neutrality, in favor of the private companies which brought the suit? It is a bid get more money out of existing infrastructure rather than build more infrastructure.
While you may have several options for internet, television and wireless services, a lot of people have one or none. Government intervention was required in the last century to provide electricity to rural areas, and it turned out to be very good for business nationwide, and improved standards of living for urban dwellers as well.
The lowered costs for telephone service you cite were caused not by internet broadband, but by the breakup of the AT&T monopoly on phone service (by the government, by the way), long before there was an internet. The internet itself was created by the government, then exploited for profit by private companies.

Phil;
Free Lunch was often an advertised feature of bars (pubs, to you) in the Great Depression. The owners would put out lunch items, usually quite salty, to induce people to drink more. Profits were higher on beer and alcohol than on food, so the bars made money. I believe it was Robert Heinlein who coined the acronym TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) History lesson over.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 2:27 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Ramcewan;
You do realize this latest controversy was raised b/c the Supreme Court ruled against the ad hoc regulations that the FCC was using to require net neutrality, in favor of the private companies which brought the suit? It is a bid get more money out of existing infrastructure rather than build more infrastructure.
I do realize that the defeat of the FCC open internet rules in court was the reason that the FCC is now considering enacting title II regulation over the internet in the name of net neutrality.

I'll refer you back to the article that I posted today that discusses how the FCC will step in to regulate but continue to allow on a case by case basis the very pay for preferential routing that net neutrality claims to defend against.

Maybe I'm coming at this from the wrong angle;

I think in theory net neutrality is a good thing, I'm all for traffic being treated equally with some exceptions for emergency systems and possibly medical telemetry data (remote robot surgery by wire for example).

However I think that net neutrality as proposed and regulated by the FCC is a bad idea. Declare the internet a telecommunication system under federal regulation and you have a myriad possible bad outcomes. For one it opens the door to censorship.

Imagine if you will that the administration decides that the freedom fighters in Syria are terrorist and bars access over the now FCC regulated internet.

Or maybe you live in a state like PA with strict pornography laws and the PA attorney general petitions the FCC to close down access or prosecute under federal wire laws pornographers in a state where it is not a crime.

A free internet is one without government regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
While you may have several options for internet, television and wireless services, a lot of people have one or none. Government intervention was required in the last century to provide electricity to rural areas, and it turned out to be very good for business nationwide, and improved standards of living for urban dwellers as well.
There are already federal and state programs providing incentives for cable and phone companies to provide internet to rural and low income areas where it would otherwise not be profitable to do so. FCC regulation of the internet under title II is not required to improve coverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
The lowered costs for telephone service you cite were caused not by internet broadband, but by the breakup of the AT&T monopoly on phone service (by the government, by the way), long before there was an internet. The internet itself was created by the government, then exploited for profit by private companies.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your facts. According to the FCC's own data the cost of a residential phone line has steadily increased from 1962 on-wards with no lowered cost following the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1982 as you have asserted (see table below from theFCC's report)

I'll go one step further and show the simple math that makes the cell phone a cheaper option;

In 1995 the FCC said the average cost for a 10 minute local call was $2.40, that's 24 cents/minute, plus an average of $17.16 base charge again from the FCC chart. Let's say you use 60 minutes in a month, your bill would be $31.56. I can buy a tracfone prepaid 60 minute card for $19.99, and that's in 2014 dollars which are worth a lot less than 1995 dollars.
Attached Images
 
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; May 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 3:48 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Maybe I'm coming at this from the wrong angle;

I think in theory net neutrality is a good thing, I'm all for traffic being treated equally with some exceptions for emergency systems and possibly medical telemetry data (remote robot surgery by wire for example).

However I think that net neutrality as proposed and regulated by the FCC is a bad idea.
The proposal is by the chairman, who is one member of the commission. It is the opposite of net neutrality. His fallback position is to declare ISPs as common carriers, but allow them to do the backdoor deals and (probably) the surcharges on consumers.
Again, this is just one commission member.

Energy deregulation gave us Enron, et al.
Banking deregulation gave us (well, too many to name)
Commodities market deregulation gave us $4+/gallon gasoline.
Internet deregulation will give us ???
President Lincoln was certainly at least partially right: "You can fool some of the people, all of the time."
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 4:14 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
The proposal is by the chairman, who is one member of the commission. It is the opposite of net neutrality. His fallback position is to declare ISPs as common carriers, but allow them to do the backdoor deals and (probably) the surcharges on consumers.
Again, this is just one commission member.

Energy deregulation gave us Enron, et al.
Banking deregulation gave us (well, too many to name)
Commodities market deregulation gave us $4+/gallon gasoline.
Internet deregulation will give us ???
President Lincoln was certainly at least partially right: "You can fool some of the people, all of the time."
We're not talking about internet deregulation we're talking about introducing regulation where it currently doesn't exist. I know it sounds like a semantics argument but it really isn't the same as deregulation.

oh and the full quote is
Quote:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Quote:
No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent.
- Abraham Lincoln
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 8:02 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
We're not talking about internet deregulation we're talking about introducing regulation where it currently doesn't exist. I know it sounds like a semantics argument but it really isn't the same as deregulation.
The court case that started this flap was about regulation. The assertation was that the FCC was regulating without authority to do so. The court agreed that the 'gentlemen's agreement' which had been in force, was not legal, and the FCC had no authority to regulate the area in question, without declaring the ISPs as common carriers.
So what you are advocating IS deregulation.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 9:47 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
There are already federal and state programs providing incentives for cable and phone companies to provide internet to rural and low income areas where it would otherwise not be profitable to do so. FCC regulation of the internet under title II is not required to improve coverage.
Indeed. And once Comcast suckles from the government nipple (our money) to get coverage to rural areas they give customers a 30 day notice that they will no longer carry RFD-TV. Here's a snippet from last weeks (05/08/2014) testimony:

"Sadly, we fear RFD-TV may have been a victim of its own success. In response to RFD-TV’s increasing popularity and viewership, especially in the Adult 50+ demographic, Comcast removed RFD-TV from markets where RFD-TV’s viewership was especially high – perhaps favoring Comcast’s lower-viewed but affiliated Retirement Living TV (RLTV) network , which targets the same age Adult 50+ demographic."

I'm not particularity in favor of Title II but something has to be done. Otherwise independent businesses like RFD-TV and innovations like the OOMA and Simple.TV will begin to disappear. Don't forget the DVR. When the cable cos learned a start-up had developed a unit consumers could use to record and time-shift programs they came unglued. First they made it so no DVR would work unless it was branded by the provider. Then the gov stepped in and said you can't do that. So we got CableCard to make it so we could buy any DVR, slip in the CableCard and use our new DVR of choice. BUT, turns out you had to call the cable guy to install it so they got their cut. Then, when there were issues they said 'not our problem', must be the CableCard. Why don't you just rent one of ours?" They may be out there but I don't know anyone using a DVR other than the one branded by the provider.

I wish it could stay the way it is but the big ISPs want control. Unless it got postponed, tomorrow we find out what the FCC is actually proposing.

Last edited by chiPersei; May 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM. Reason: Spelling.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 11:52 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

It's like this. At least the government is "supposed" to represent us. The big, monopolistic ISP/Content providers don't have that sticky little technicality.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 9:26 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
Unless it got postponed, tomorrow we find out what the FCC is actually proposing.
Should be interesting to see what they have to say.

Here's an interesting image from a company called sandvine who releases a report twice yearly on internet usage report

I think it makes the point that streaming entertainment services are putting heavy pressure on the service provider networks. This is traffic generated by what is currently a relatively small percentage of internet subscribers, the "cord cutters" who get their TV from a streaming service. While the net neutrality argument tends to focus on all packets are equal it ignores the fact that a majority of those packets are from a minority of users.

Think about it this way, maybe I'm trying to get on Flickr to upload some photos and then Steve's to post about my photos. But my packets are getting drowned out by Alan's netflix streaming packets. Is that really fair or neutral? Maybe to the packets it's fair and neutral but to the users it is unfair. It's as if we're all trying to get water for our homes and pulling from the same well as the big farm, food processing plant, water park and fish hatchery down the street that are using millions of gallons to our hundreds.

There is a substantive difference between traffic that is really just a consumption pipe for a paid content delivery service and the rest of the internet traffic that produces commerce, collaboration, social interaction and things like Steve's.

__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 11:05 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Should be interesting to see what they have to say.

Here's an interesting image from a company called sandvine who releases a report twice yearly on internet usage report


Think about it this way, maybe I'm trying to get on Flickr to upload some photos and then Steve's to post about my photos. But my packets are getting drowned out by Alan's netflix streaming packets. Is that really fair or neutral? Maybe to the packets it's fair and neutral but to the users it is unfair. It's as if we're all trying to get water for our homes and pulling from the same well as the big farm, food processing plant, water park and fish hatchery down the street that are using millions of gallons to our hundreds.
Under strict net neutrality, your activities would be treated the same as Alan's, despite being of different types. This is the way the net was operating prior to the court decision. Now, those Netflix packets get priority, so that Alan can watch his movie without pauses for buffering, and your packets have to be fitted in, somehow.
Using your well analogy, we used to all have the same size pipes from the wellhead, but now, the big commercial operations can put in bigger pipes than we can, without building a bigger well. Under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes, in order to get more water.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 11:30 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Under strict net neutrality, your activities would be treated the same as Alan's, despite being of different types. This is the way the net was operating prior to the court decision. Now, those Netflix packets get priority, so that Alan can watch his movie without pauses for buffering, and your packets have to be fitted in, somehow.
Using your well analogy, we used to all have the same size pipes from the wellhead, but now, the big commercial operations can put in bigger pipes than we can, without building a bigger well.
Netflix is a big commercial operation just like the ISPs, don't be fooled by the CEO's griping about paying Comcast and Verizon, he's griping all the way to the bank with more subscribers than Comcast or Verizon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes, in order to get more water.
You're attributing something to net neutrality, forced infrastructure investment, that isn't part of what has ever been proposed as part of net neutrality in the US. Please I invite you to provide proof. Here's Wikipedia's article on net neutrality in the US and not once does it mention forced infrastructure improvement as part of what the FCC is proposing or the legislation that has been proposed.

Simply put you are repeating a lie you've been told that somehow the FCC will force the ISPs to provide better service. It's ironic you used that Abe Lincoln quote about people being fooled and then immediately repeated a lie you've been fooled into believing. Again I invite you to prove otherwise and back up this statement with some credible facts.

In fact net neutrality does not provide any reason for the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure. The only way they're pushed to upgrade their infrastructure is through market forces. In my area FIOS and Comcast are competing and they have both boosted speed incrementally, and because they're in competition for my business they haven't been able to raise the price.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; May 15, 2014 at 11:58 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 PM.